Fed Audit Passed....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Again, you mean Corporatism and un-free regulated markets NOT Capitalism and unregulated free-markets.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    One can hope.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But unregulated capitalism is a recipe for disaster as history has proven time and time again. Free markets are great; they have an important role in our society. But they are not the panacea for all ills. There is also a role for socialism in our society. There are no simple solutions/remedies especially as our society and technology become more powerful and complex.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    please quit lying. by definition progressives are against such measures. and Ron paul takes corporate donations.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    yes because robber baron era was the pinacle of freedom oh wait most people lived practiclly as slaves to the wealthy. unregulated free markets and pure capitalism( which corporitism is a part of) reduce freedom rather than make it grow.
     
  8. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    734
    Fair enough

    Yes, my research does appear to be sloppy. I will withdraw from this argument until I have time to properly investigate the details of this issue. I have a deep distrust of government and I am prone to knee-jerk reactions at times. However I think it is pretty clear that the government will, in most cases, turn an easily fixed problem into a mind bending crisis. Easy fix= audit/end the fed. Mind bending crisis= let the fed continue to print money out of thin air with zero oversight. I believe more government equals less freedom. I also believe that the fed is what allows the government to grow so big. But as far as the senate passing the bill? Fat chance. But time will tell. I really do hope I am wrong. Believing everything you read on the internet is dangerous. That is how WWII was started.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No the numbers don’t lie. But people do. How do you know President Obama’s motivations? You don’t. That is you yet again projecting your issues onto President Obama.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Income inequality has been and remains an ongoing issue in the US. It didn’t begin with President Obama and it will not likely end with President Obama. The US faces some serious long term issues that will take the political will and time to resolve.

    I don’t know. Do they have to? I have already provided you proof of the many Libertarian organizations the Koch brothers and their fellow “corporatists” support.

    If my facts are incorrect then you should be able to prove same. So let’s see it. And please show me where it says that one has to support Ron Paul in his effort to become POTUS in order to be considered a Libertarian.
    As previously pointed out to you the ideology supported by the Koch brothers is the exact same ideology espoused by Paul and other Libertarians. The Koch brothers and their father have a long history of supporting and financing Libertarian causes.

    "Main article: Political activities of the Koch family

    David and Charles have funded conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States.[5] Since the 1980s the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to such organizations, among these think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as more recently Americans for Prosperity.[7] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.[8][9]

    “According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, "the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members" have financially supported organizations "fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research." [10]” - Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

    You just don’t want to own up to the fact that you have been played like a fiddle by the very people you complain about all the time.
     
  10. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    No, I mean capitalism. Your fantasyland definition of "capitalism" is not the definition that is scientifically relevant. The antagonisms created by private ownership of capital and the division between labor and capital are not overcome with or without "free markets"

    All capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

    If people were intellectually honest and applied the same standards they use to criticize socialism against capitalism, they would deem capitalism a failure. How much hunger, homelessness, poverty, debt, etc, are present in the US? Loads and loads. Capitalism is a failure, by and large, for the majority of mankind.

    You can't kinda have socialism. You either do or you don't. By the way, Joe, according to historian Robert C. Allen, the Soviet Union achieved the fastest industrialization in history. The USSR did in 20 years what the USA did gradually over many more decades. The same goes for Albania under Enver Hoxha, following WW2.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    That is not true; capitalism is very good at producing goods and services efficiently. Marx recognized that fact and it was the basis for his ideology.

    Who says people are not intellectually honest in this regard? That is certainly not the conclusion that can be rationally derived from history.
    Oh yes you can. Most modern economies are a mix of socialism and capitalism (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, The United States, etc.). And yes it is true the Soviet Union did achieve the fastest industrialization in history. It went from a feudal society to an industrial society very quickly, but at what price? The word you are missing is “efficiency”. How many people were imprisoned in gulags to support that industrialization?
     
  12. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    Not always, but you are also missing another important point: how good is it at distributing those goods and services equitably?

    Of course it is. How many people in the third world live in poverty because of Western capitalism, i.e. the long history of imperialism for markets and resources? How many people in America are homeless, starving, or lack access to medical care? How many people has capitalism utterly and completely failed? Capitalism only produces success with great cost of human life.

    That's not an accurate definition of socialism. Socialism is about the common ownership of the means of production and the end of the wage-labor and commodity production system. Countries with a large public sector are not socialist.

    Fewer people than are currently imprisoned in the United States, apparently. What about the price of capitalism? How many people were murdered in the third world; died in imperialist wars; and suffered from poverty and exploitation to support Western capitalism?

    Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. And your point is irrelevant. America today is not feudal Russia. We don't need to follow the same policies of brutal industrialization because we are already industrialized. We are not caught in the midst of two World Wars or in a Cold War. We are, now more than ever, at a period in time when socialism can work well: we have the industrial capacity to support it.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Equitably, and who determines what is or is not equitable? Capitalism is very good at efficiently producing and distributing resources. And that is the lesson from history. Even Marx recognized that fact.

    Now that is demonstrably untrue. And you don’t have to look far to see it. Mankind has never in the thousands of years that we have walked this planet, known the prosperity and wellbeing generated in the last century by capitalist societies.

    Oh yes it is. We can and do have a mixed system. The countries I mentioned all have socialistic and capitalist features. Each of those governments own and distribute certain goods and services to varying degrees. In England the healthcare system is completely socialized where the government owns and distributes healthcare services. In The United States, there are a number of government enterprises that are owned and the goods as services are distributed by government fiat (e.g. Import Export Bank, The Federal Reserve, road construction and maintenance, national parks, museums, veterans benefits, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, numerous R&D projects, educational systems, food assistance for the poor, community hospitals, transit systems, water and sewer services, etc.).

    You are wrong. How many people did the Soviet Union imprison and how many did they kill in their first 20 years? Now contrast that with the US. There really is no comparison. You are confusing imperialism and colonialism with capitalism.

    No I am being honest. You just don’t like reality. Where is the Soviet Union today? It doesn’t exist. It didn’t last even a century before it collapsed economically and politically. The facts speak quite loudly and clearly for themselves.

    The world is not quite as simple as you appear to think it is. It is a trait you share with our rather conservative brothers and sisters. The fact is that socialism and capitalism are tools. And it is our job to use the right tools for the right jobs. Both systems have strengths and each has their weaknesses. Neither alone is a viable solution for all the challenges that confront us.

    I think there will come a time when Marx will ultimately be proven correct. But that time is not now. As I have told you before, unless and until we solve the basic economic problem of scarcity, communism will remain a pipe dream. Even Marx recognized that his communism could not occur before the problem of scarcity had been resolved.
     
  14. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    No, he didn't, because it isn't. Hence the massive contradiction of homelessness despite available empty homes; or the contradiction of 3000 children starving to death in India every day while $1.5 billion in grain rots. Capitalism is geared towards fulfilling profits, and not meeting human needs (and the two often conflict).

    False. That was due to the industrial revolution in general, not specifically capitalism. Industrial production is not a feature specific to capitalism. And who does know the "prosperity"? Certainly not the third world that you screwed over in the process.


    No, not in any meaningful sense. A "mixed economy" means having a large public and private sector, not "socialism". Socialism concerns ownership of the means of production and the relation between labor and capital. All the countries are just plainly capitalist countries (i.e capitalist production), with large public sectors. Again, socialism in the traditional sense has nothing to do with public sectors.

    Public goods and services =/= socialism. That's not what socialism is concerned with. They are just public goods and services.

    Back up your assertion
    I don't know, why don't you look it up and provide sources? And I ask you this: how many does the US imprison and how many did it ill in its imperialist wars and efforts?

    Imperialism and colonialism are historical features of capitalism. Quit living in a fantasy world. Capitalism in reality has been built on the blood and bodies of millions; through wars; through colonialism and imperialism. It's not about neat mom-and-pop shops or the neighborhood mall.

    False. The Soviet Union dissolved because of political, and not economic, reasons. And your point is largely irrelevant; if we examine what it achieved when it was here, we can examine the successes and failures and learn from them. Again, the United States today is not in the same historical conditions that the USSR found itself.

    I disagree.

    Can you point out where he actually said that? Or are you just going to keep making assertions without evidence?

    Nobody ever pretended that we needed to live in a perfect world in order to implement common ownership of the means of production. Planned economies have historically done better than capitalist economies, too, by the way, as I've pointed out with Albania and the USSR.
     
  15. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    734
    For RedStar

    If you hate capitalism why do you not choose to live in the great Soviet Union? Oh yeah, I forgot that it collapsed due it being the opposite of free market capitalism. Sorry. But do not be sad, the US government loves to interfere with markets almost as much as its former enemy.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh yes he did.

    “In a capitalist economy, technological improvement and its consequent increased production augment the amount of material wealth (use value) in society, whilst simultaneously diminishing the economic value of the same wealth, thereby diminishing the rate of profit — a paradox characteristic of economic crisis in a capitalist economy; "poverty in the midst of plenty" consequent to over-production and under-consumption.” - Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital#Themes

    Capitalism is certainly about profit maximization. And the system if unrestrained leads to excessive concentration of wealth and ultimately social collapse if corrective measures are not taken. Lassie Fare capitalism does not work. Nor does unrestrained socialism work. And that is why despite a century of experimentation, there is not one successful socialist/communist economy in the world today. All modern successful economies are mixed economies.

    You contradict yourself. First you say it is false and in the next statement you say it is true because of the Industrial Revolution. I have news for you; the Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism in the west. In the Soviet Union it was fueled by a totalitarian dictator. But that does not in any way have anything to do with the fact that a controlled capitalist (i.e. mixed economy) led to unprecedented prosperity in the last century.
    And just where is your proof that I screwed over the third world?

    I said and I will repeat it for you again, that we have a mixed economy which mixes socialism and capitalism. This was the great advance of the last century that led to unprecedented prosperity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

    Those third world countries or less developed countries you like to complain about never made it to the mixed economy world. That is not the fault of those who did.

    Because you made the outlandish claims. Where is your proof?

    Show me where in the definition of capitalism it mentions imperialism and colonialism as features of capitalism. It doesn’t. You are confusing Mercantilism with capitalism. Mercantilism is an economic policy. It is not capitalism.

    Show me a successful communist/socialist society today after nearly a century of experimentation. You cannot. The communist government of The People’s Republic of China is now one of the biggest capitalist nations in the world. The Soviet Union is gone; all their client states with the exception of Cuba are no longer socialist/communists either. And Cuba never got off the ground economically.

    You don’t want to believe that the Soviet Union collapsed because of its economic problems. But it did.

    “The economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, and industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning. The economy was characterized by state control of investment, public ownership of industrial assets, and during the last 20 years of its existence, pervasive corruption and socioeconomic stagnation.

    After Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, continuing economic liberalization moved the economy towards a market-oriented socialist economy. All of these factors contributed to the final dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The stagnation which would consume the last years of the Soviet Union was caused by poor governance under Leonid Brezhnev and inefficiencies within the planned economy. When the stagnation began is a matter of debate, but is normally placed either in the 1960s or early 1970s- Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_economy

    Well where is the support for your position? Can you point to a single instance in which the communist economic system has been successful on the long term? No you cannot.


    I believe I already did.

    No one said that you needed to live in a perfect world in order to implement communism as obviously, communism was implemented in an imperfect world and it didn’t work. In order to be successful, the communist/Marxist model requires the elimination of the scarcity problem. The world even now, has not gotten to that state predicted by Marx where production costs would be virtually nonexistent and we would be awash in goods and services.

    As for your two examples of communist/socialist success, they no longer exist. The Soviet Union no longer exists and Socialist Albania no longer exists. They collapsed with their planned economies. Even today, the per capita GDP of Albania is only about 7k dollars.

    “The democratically elected government that assumed office in April 1992 launched an ambitious economic reform program to halt economic deterioration and put the country on the path toward a market economy. Key elements included price and exchange system liberalization, fiscal consolidation, monetary restraint, and a firm income policy. These were complemented by a comprehensive package of structural reforms including privatization, enterprise, and financial sector reform, and creation of the legal framework for a market economy and private sector activity.” – Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
  17. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    The Fed owns the Gold. No Audit of Fort Knox is possible.

    [video=youtube;UaUhGpBNBtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaUhGpBNBtk&feature=related[/video]
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, I bet you believe your mother is/was a Martian too.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This is the thing, no one has a problem with you thinking or doing anything you want to do Joe - under this condition: so long as it doesn't involve initiating force against an innocent person. See, I don't care where you live, what you do, just meet me here. Don't use for against innocent people.

    You OTOH do not afford that freedom to others. So long as someone lives within these imaginary lines on a map called the USA you think that gives you the right to use force against them. They may live 2000 miles away - you'll still feel perfectly at east with stealing from them. Oh, but cross the imaginary line by 0.0001 millimeter... oh, then it's a whole different set of rules. Then you wouldn't feel comfortable stealing that person's property or using governmental force to coerce them into giving up their private property.

    Isn't that interesting Joe? How then and only then you suddenly feel the weight of your support for immorality. Imagine sending the US Military into Canada and taking property. Suddenly it's seen for what it is - violence against innocent people. But the guy who lives 2000 miles away IN America, well that feels perfectly fine again.

    The lines are imaginary Joe.



    While it is possible that the human character is retarding in some permanent way, I don't think this is the case and have hope we are able to one day return to the principles that set this culture of individuals on course towards the radical idea of personal liberty. We're just in the arc of a common historical theme. The State now controls just about any and every aspect of our lives - this suggests it's reaching the limit again and the people will push back. I often think the harder the State pushes the better - it just means the people will push back that much further when the pendulum swings the other way.

    As for a proper Audit of the Federal Reserve, I think the younger generation may insist - not the babyboomers. No way. But their grandkids might stop and think why they're so poor and why they have to pay so much for everything grandpa practically got for free.
     
  20. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    That is a strange claim. Ultimately, though, the claim that the Fed is a "private" entity is impossible to sustain...or if it is to be sustained, one needs a peculiar definition of "private." As I once wrote elsewhere:

    The Federal Reserve has both governmental and somewhat private parts.

    The Federal Reserve system was setup by Congress with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve system operates in accordance with law, which is Title 12 U.S.C. Chapter 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-3

    The entire system is controlled by the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors is a 100% government agency. Each member of the Board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Board members are not allowed to be officers, directors, or employees of any bank, banking institution, or trust company. In fact, Board members are typically economics professors or at least hold doctorates in economics.

    There are 12 district banks and 25 branches in the Federal Reserve. The Reserve Banks serve banks, the U.S. Treasury, and, indirectly, the public. A Reserve Bank is often called a "banker's bank," storing currency and coin, and processing checks and electronic payments. Reserve Banks also supervise commercial banks in their regions in cooperation with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (a government body). As the bank for the U.S. government, Reserve Banks handle the Treasury's payments, sell government securities and assist with the Treasury's cash management and investment activities. Reserve Banks conduct research on regional, national, and international economic issues.

    The Federal Reserve district banks are setup in a manner similar (but with material differences) to private corporations, but they are not. They are setup to be independent of the government but to operate within it. Nationally chartered banks, like Bank of America, N.A., are required by law to become members of the Federal Reserve system. State chartered banks may become members if they meet certain requirements. A bank becomes a member by SUBSCRIBING to shares in one of the district banks. The amount of shares a member bank must subscribe to is set by law to a percentage of the member bank's capital. For federally chartered banks, they have no choice but to subscribe. For state chartered banks they can only avoid subscribing by not becoming a member in the first place. A member bank cannot subscribe to any more or any less than the specified amount set by law. Additionally, the stock DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP beyond the par value of the stock and a 6% annual dividend. If a Federal Reserve bank were ever dissolved, once the member banks were paid back their subscription amounts plus any unpaid dividend, all other assets and liabilities would become the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Treasury. This is in the law.

    Each district bank is controlled in its day-to-day operations by a board of directors. Six of the nine members of the board are selected by the member banks. However, those six board members cannot be officers, directors, or employees of any bank and three of those board members are not allowed to even own stock in any bank. These six are subject to the approval of the Board of Governors. Each member bank gets one vote per board set, regardless of how many or how few shares they own. The remaining three of the nine board members are selected by the Board of Governors directly.

    In accordance to law, private individuals, corporations, and foreign governments are not allowed to own federal reserve stock. In fact, the Board of Governors can demand surrender of Federal Reserve stock at any time.

    BTW, the Federal Reserve is absolutely constitutional. The Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8, in part, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;..."

    So, it is one of the powers of Congress to coin money and to regulate its value.

    Later in that SAME SECTION, the Constitution states, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That basically means that Congress can enact laws in order to execute the powers given to it. That also means it can DELEGATE those powers. That is EXACTLY what Congress did when it enacted the Federal Reserve Act.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This all nonsense that has been covered time and time again, and it all boils down to your perceived right to do anything you want regardless of our Constitution and the laws of our land. Basically you want to impose your notions on everyone else. And if you don’t get what you want when you want, then you call it immoral. If you don’t like our form of government, if you don’t like being a responsible citizen, if you don’t want to pay your fair share of our collective expenses (i.e. taxes), then you are free to leave and find a state more to your liking.

    Somehow you seem to think your life would be better without an elected government and instead trusting your fate into the hands of those that finance your party (e.g. Koch brothers) who have been caught red handed stealing oil and polluting the land and air.

    This is kind of funny, and just what audit would you add that is not being done today?
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Nice counter argument Joe. Yes, we've gone over this and concluded the ability to construct abstract thought is severed lacking in the American psyche.

    Just because something is 'legal' and endorsed by the US Constitution doesn't mean it's moral. Slavery is the obvious example.

    My Liberty is 'MY' Liberty.

    No, ethics helps us determine what is and is not moral.

    Nice word use of "responsible citizen" and "my fair share". I am the one advocating a responsible moral society where citizens pay their way - which most probably would like the opportunity to do.
    Again, it doesn't matter which party, they're both the same. Secondly, the Democraps are just as quick as Rethuglicans to pass laws ALLOWING for land to be polluted.

    In a moral free law abiding society where property rights are upheld ANYONE who pollutes another's property would be PERSONALLY liable and through the courts pay retribution. Under the current system they pay for the re-election of whichever douche is running and get a 'regulation' passed so that if they do pollute and spoil someone elses' land it's not illegal. Which is why we have this IDIOTIC situation where GMO soya seed can land in an Organic Farmers land, spoiling his crop, and it's the organic farmer who is the one who pays a fine! Instead of Monsanto's CEO.

    That's bipartisan thuggery Joe. It's not limited to one party.

    Another classic example is that of Corzine stealing money out of 'Segregated Accounts' and not being held liable because there's enough loopholes written for people like him he commits murder and walks away laughing. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have the POTUS in your pocket along with all your CONgressional buddies on BOTH sides. The fact your a pompon waiving cheerleader for criminals while US farmers loose their land and property says something Joe.

    Which brings us to:

    Then why is it the Senate will not even take a vote on H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act? It was passed OVERWHELMINGLY by the House of Representatives... yet that ass face Reid says he's not even going to bother considering it and douche's like Hoyer who think it's WRONG for Congress to have a role in regulating our monetary system. You want to talk about NOT following the US Constitution - that's exactly what's happening.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yeah, this boils down to any elected government that does something you don’t approve of is immoral. You and you alone are the arbiter of morality. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks or wants. And if the tort system worked so well at preventing pollution, why did we end up with rivers that spontaneously burned due to pollution before the EPA? Your knowledge of our tort system is extremely limited and frankly naïve just like your knowledge of the Fed.

    Well yeah it is wrong for Congress to actively manage monetary policy. We see how well Congress has done managing fiscal policy; let’s let them directly manage monetary policy as well. Yeah right, the only thing keeping this economy alive is good monetary policy. Congress has done a great job screwing up fiscal policy.

    But getting back to the topic of this thread, the Fed is already transparent. So this bill is a total waste of time, not surprising given the history of this House.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012

Share This Page